Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Right of asylum

![Medieval 'Right of Asylum' boundary marker][float-right] The right of asylum is a legal principle granting protection to individuals who flee their country due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined under Article 1 of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.^[1] While Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the right to seek asylum from persecution, no international obligation compels states to grant it, preserving national sovereignty over admission decisions.^[2]^[3] The core binding commitment is the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting return to territories where life or freedom would be threatened on those grounds.^[4] Historically, the concept traces to ancient civilizations, including Egyptian, Greek, and Hebrew practices of sanctuary in temples or sacred sites, later evolving in medieval Europe through ecclesiastical asylum extended to criminals and debtors at churches until its abolition in the late 18th century.^[3] Modern asylum emerged post-World War II amid displacement from conflicts and genocides, with the 1951 Convention—initially limited to European events before the 1967 Protocol universalized it—establishing standardized refugee status determination.^[4] In contemporary practice, asylum systems in signatory states process claims amid surging applications, often driven by economic migration rather than qualifying persecution, resulting in high rejection rates—such as approximately 80-90% in the United States—and protracted backlogs that strain resources and raise security concerns from fraudulent claims.^[5]^[6] These challenges highlight tensions between humanitarian imperatives and sovereign control, fueling debates over reform to curb abuse while upholding genuine protection.^[7]

Definition and Legal Principles

Core Definition and Eligibility Criteria

The right of asylum is a legal principle under which a sovereign state may grant protection to a foreign national fleeing persecution or serious threats to life or freedom in their country of origin, typically involving sanctuary within the territory of the host state.^[1] This protection is discretionary for the granting state, as international law imposes no absolute obligation to confer asylum but prohibits return to harm under the principle of non-refoulement. Unlike temporary safe haven or humanitarian admission, asylum generally entails a durable legal status, often leading to rights such as residence, work authorization, and pathways to citizenship, contingent on national implementation.^[8] Eligibility for asylum hinges on meeting the refugee definition in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as expanded by the 1967 Protocol: a person outside their country of nationality who, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of that country's protection.^[1] The fear must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable, supported by evidence of past harm or credible risks, such as threats from state agents, non-state actors where the state cannot protect, or patterns of discrimination amounting to persecution.^[9] Economic disadvantage, generalized violence, or personal disputes absent a nexus to the protected grounds do not qualify, distinguishing asylum from economic migration or temporary protected status.^[8] Certain bars preclude eligibility, including commission of serious non-political crimes, serious reasons for regarding the individual as a danger to the host community, or acts contrary to UN principles, as outlined in Article 1F and Article 33(2) of the 1951 Convention.^[1] Applicants must apply within reasonable time limits set by national law, often one year from arrival, with exceptions for changed circumstances or extraordinary reasons.^[8] Verification involves individualized assessment, including credibility interviews and corroboration, to ensure claims are not fabricated for non-persecutory motives.^[9]

Distinction from Refugee Status and Economic Migration

The right of asylum encompasses a state's discretionary authority to provide sanctuary to foreigners facing threats, rooted in sovereignty rather than binding international obligations, whereas refugee status constitutes a formalized recognition under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, requiring evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.^[10]^[11] An asylum seeker is an individual who has fled their country and formally requests protection but awaits determination of their claim, potentially qualifying for refugee status or subsidiary forms of protection if criteria are met; failure to substantiate persecution results in denial and possible removal, distinguishing the provisional nature of asylum applications from the affirmative legal protections afforded to recognized refugees.^[12]^[10] In contrast to economic migration, which involves voluntary relocation primarily for improved employment prospects, higher wages, or better living conditions without individualized threats of harm, the right of asylum demands demonstration of compelled flight due to risks incompatible with return, excluding pure economic disadvantage as grounds for eligibility under international law.^[2]^[13] The 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol omit economic factors from refugee definitions, emphasizing persecution over generalized poverty or market-driven incentives, thereby permitting states to repatriate economic migrants absent non-refoulement obligations.^[10]^[14] This demarcation serves to limit asylum to cases of genuine humanitarian need, preventing systemic overload from unsubstantiated claims often motivated by economic pull factors; for example, UNHCR data indicate that many asylum applications from low-persecution-risk countries are rejected upon adjudication, underscoring the evidentiary burden to differentiate from voluntary migration.^[12]^[15] State practice reveals frequent conflation in public discourse, where economic migrants may file asylum claims to exploit procedural delays or access welfare benefits, though legal frameworks mandate rejection absent qualifying persecution.^[15]^[16]

Historical Development

Ancient and Classical Origins

The concept of asylum in antiquity was rooted in religious inviolability, where sacred spaces shielded fugitives from profane justice, reflecting a belief in divine intervention to temper human retribution. In ancient Greece, from at least the Archaic period onward, temples, altars, and sacred groves functioned as asyla, with the term asylon denoting places immune from seizure or violence. Suppliants practiced hiketeia, ritually grasping the knees of a deity's image, priest, or altar to claim protection, often for involuntary exiles, debtors, slaves, or criminals fleeing immediate pursuit; this custom appears in Homeric epics and persisted through the Classical era, though enforcement depended on the host city's piety and politics. Prominent sites included the Temple of Theseus in Athens, which sheltered figures like the tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogeiton after their 514 BC assassination of Hipparchus, and the Temple of Poseidon at Taenarus in Laconia, renowned for admitting even helots escaping Spartan oppression.^[17]^[18] By the Hellenistic period (circa 323–31 BC), Greek poleis and kings formalized asylia through decrees granting inviolability to select temples and cities, evidenced by over 150 inscriptions petitioning for such status to safeguard pilgrims, envoys, and refugees amid interstate conflicts; this diplomatic tool prioritized economic and ritual benefits over universal refuge, excluding notorious malefactors. In Rome, asylum's origins tied to the city's legendary founding around 753 BC, when Romulus designated a sanctuary on the Capitoline Hill—between the nascent temples of Jupiter and Juno—as a haven for fugitives, debtors, and outlaws to bolster population and manpower, a pragmatic policy that legend credits with enabling Rome's expansion from a band of shepherds to a regional power. Early republican practice emphasized territorial asylum over strictly sacred sites, though consecrated temples later assumed protective roles by law.^[19]^[20] Roman authorities increasingly regulated asylum to prevent abuse, as unchecked sanctuaries harbored criminals and strained order; Emperor Tiberius in AD 19 ordered a senatorial inquiry into Greek precedents, citing Tacitus, to curb excessive claims at temples and imperial statues, limiting refuge to temporary stays and prioritizing state justice. Subsequent emperors like Claudius and Hadrian further restricted privileges, confining asylum to select sites such as the Temple of Aesculapius on Tiber Island, while excluding voluntary offenders; this evolution marked a shift from divine autonomy to imperial oversight, prefiguring later Christian adaptations without granting asylum as an inherent individual right. Protection remained precarious, reliant on the sanctuary's prestige and the pursuer's restraint, often failing in wartime or against powerful adversaries.^[21]^[22]

Medieval Religious Sanctuary

The medieval practice of religious sanctuary granted fugitives temporary protection within churches across Christian Europe, shielding them from immediate secular pursuit and punishment for felonies such as murder, theft, rape, and arson.^[23]^[24] Rooted in biblical precedents like the Hebrew cities of refuge and adapted from late Roman imperial law by the 4th century, sanctuary received early ecclesiastical recognition at the Council of Sardica in 344 CE, though it did not yet establish a comprehensive right to asylum.^[25] By the Carolingian era under Charlemagne in the 8th and 9th centuries, the practice integrated with penance and conflict resolution, allowing killers and other criminals refuge to facilitate reconciliation or legal processes rather than unchecked impunity.^[26] In England, sanctuary evolved into a formalized procedure by the 12th century, incorporated into common law with stays limited to 40 days, after which claimants confessed their deeds to a coroner, swore an oath of abjuration, forfeited possessions to the crown, and departed via designated ports to exile, often in France or Ireland, under threat of death if they returned.^[23]^[24] Claimants typically entered a church, rang a bell or used a sanctuary knocker to signal intent, and sat on a frith-stool or similar marker for protection; up to two-thirds of felonies in certain counties resolved via sanctuary claims, with roughly 1,000 seekers annually across the realm.^[24]^[27] Twenty-two privileged churches, such as Westminster Abbey, held royal charters for extended or perpetual sanctuary privileges until the practice's curtailment.^[24] Continental practices varied, with canon law permitting indefinite refuge at altars in some regions, though secular rulers increasingly regulated or challenged ecclesiastical claims to curb abuses like repeated criminality from sanctuary havens.^[23] Limitations excluded sanctuary for sacrilegious acts committed within sacred spaces, as in a 14th-century English case where a woman was denied protection after murdering a priest in church, and violations occurred, such as the 1232 seizure of Hubert de Burgh from sanctuary despite protections.^[23] Overall, sanctuary functioned as a pragmatic mechanism to temper blood feuds and integrate offenders into orderly justice, balancing divine inviolability of holy sites with temporal authority, though its frequent exploitation by felons contributed to legal tensions by the late Middle Ages.^[28]^[29]

Modern Codification from 19th Century Onward

In the 19th century, the right of asylum evolved from ad hoc religious and customary practices into a secular state prerogative, primarily applied to political exiles amid waves of revolutionary upheaval across Europe. Following the 1848 revolutions, nations such as France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom received tens of thousands of dissidents fleeing persecution, with France alone hosting over 7,000 refugees by 1851, often under informal policies emphasizing non-extradition for political crimes rather than codified entitlements.^[30] These grants were discretionary, rooted in domestic politics and humanitarian norms, but lacked uniform legal standards, allowing sovereigns to expel threats to public order as affirmed in practices across Europe. In Britain, early 19th-century parliamentary debates crystallized the notion of a constitutional "right of asylum" to shield foreigners from extradition for non-criminal political acts, though this remained interpretive rather than statutory. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mounting immigration pressures prompted initial legislative restrictions, signaling the onset of formal codification at the national level. The United Kingdom's 1905 Aliens Act introduced asylum qualifications, permitting exclusion of destitute or criminal aliens while preserving refuge for genuine political persecutors, enacted amid an influx of over 100,000 Eastern European Jews fleeing pogroms between 1881 and 1914.^[31] Similar measures emerged elsewhere, such as Switzerland's 1931 Refugee Office establishment to manage inflows, reflecting a balance between hospitality and sovereignty amid economic strains.^[30] In the United States, informal asylum persisted until Progressive Era laws like the 1917 Immigration Act imposed literacy tests and barred radicals, curtailing open entry that had absorbed European dissidents since the mid-1800s.^[32] International codification gained traction after World War I, as statelessness from the Russian Revolution and Armenian genocide—displacing over 1.5 million by 1923—exposed gaps in national approaches. The League of Nations appointed Fridtjof Nansen as High Commissioner for Refugees in 1921, yielding the 1922 Arrangement for Russian Refugees and identity certificates for 450,000 by 1924, followed by extensions to Armenians (1924) and Assyrians (1926).^[33] These temporary pacts emphasized travel documents over permanent status, paving the way for the 1933 Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees, ratified by 11 states, which defined refugees as those lacking protection from their origin country and mandated non-discrimination in basic rights like wage equality and movable property access.^[34] Though limited in scope and adherence—failing to halt expulsions during rising fascism—these instruments marked the shift toward multilateral norms, influencing post-World War II frameworks by prioritizing legal identity over discretionary mercy.^[35]

International Framework

Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 14

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, establishes a foundational principle for the international protection of individuals fleeing persecution.^[36] The provision states: "(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Drafted in the aftermath of World War II and the displacement of millions due to Nazi persecution and other atrocities, the article reflected a consensus on the moral imperative to protect those targeted for political, religious, or ideological reasons, drawing from earlier humanitarian responses like the League of Nations' efforts for Russian and Armenian refugees in the 1920s.^[37] However, as a non-binding declaration rather than a treaty, it sets aspirational standards without imposing legal obligations on states to grant asylum, influencing customary norms but leaving implementation to national discretion and subsequent instruments.^[38] The first paragraph affirms a universal right applicable to all persons, emphasizing both the freedom to seek asylum—entailing no penalty for applying—and to enjoy it where granted, which some scholars interpret as implying a substantive protection against return to danger, akin to non-refoulement principles later codified elsewhere.^[39] This formulation addressed post-war refugee crises, where over 40 million Europeans were displaced by 1947, underscoring asylum as a humanitarian safeguard rather than an economic or migratory entitlement.^[40] Yet, the right's scope is delimited by paragraph 2, excluding claims rooted in ordinary criminality (e.g., theft or fraud without political motive) or violations of UN Charter aims, such as aggression or genocide, thereby preventing abuse by fugitives from legitimate justice or threats to international peace.^[38] These exclusions reflect drafting compromises, as some states opposed broader language fearing it would encumber sovereignty or shield criminals.^[41] In practice, Article 14 has shaped the global asylum framework by inspiring the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which operationalizes refugee definitions tied to "well-founded fear of persecution" on grounds like race, religion, or political opinion, while echoing the UDHR's exclusions for serious crimes.^[3] UNHCR data indicate that since 1950, over 100 million people have sought asylum under regimes influenced by this article, though grant rates vary widely—e.g., below 40% in many Western states by 2023—highlighting tensions between the declarative ideal and state controls on borders and resources.^[37] Critiques note that the article's vagueness on "persecution" and lack of enforcement mechanisms allow interpretive leeway, enabling rejections of claims not meeting stricter treaty criteria, while affirming no absolute entitlement overrides national security or public order considerations.^[42] Thus, Article 14 symbolizes a commitment to asylum as a human right response to tyranny, but its efficacy depends on binding treaties and domestic laws for tangible protection.^[43]

1951 UN Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees was adopted on 28 July 1951 at the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons held in Geneva from 2 to 26 July 1951.^[44]^[45] It entered into force on 22 April 1954, following ratification by the required number of states.^[44] The instrument established the foundational definition of a refugee as "a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country."^[10] This definition emphasized individualized persecution rather than generalized conditions like war or economic hardship, requiring evidence of personal risk tied to specified grounds.^[10]^[46] Central to the Convention is Article 33, enshrining the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits contracting states from expelling or returning ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.^[4] Additional provisions outline minimum standards for refugee treatment, including access to courts, employment, education, and public relief on par with nationals or most-favored aliens, while excluding those deemed a danger to the host country's security or guilty of serious non-political crimes.^[47] However, the Convention's scope was temporally restricted to refugees resulting from events occurring before 1 January 1951 and geographically limited primarily to Europe, reflecting its origins in addressing post-World War II displacement in that region.^[4]^[47] As of 2024, 146 states are parties to the 1951 Convention.^[4] By the 1960s, emerging refugee crises from decolonization in Africa and Asia, alongside Cold War displacements beyond Europe and after 1951, rendered the original limitations obsolete, prompting calls for universal application.^[47] The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2198 (XXI) and opened for signature on 31 January 1967, addressed this by removing both the temporal cutoff and geographical restrictions.^[48]^[4] The Protocol entered into force on 4 October 1967, upon the sixth instrument of ratification or accession, and stipulates that its provisions "shall be applied by the States Parties hereto without any geographic limitation," while extending the Convention's substantive articles to refugees from events after 1950, subject to any prior territorial declarations by states parties to the original Convention.^[49]^[48] It does not redefine refugees or alter core obligations but incorporates the 1951 text by reference, enabling broader protection without requiring re-ratification of the Convention itself.^[4] As of 2024, 146 states are parties to the Protocol, with a combined total of 149 states bound by one or both instruments.^[4] Together, the Convention and Protocol constitute the cornerstone of contemporary international refugee law, obligating states to cooperate with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in supervising their application, though enforcement relies on state compliance without a dedicated judicial body.^[50]^[46] They exclude protection for those who have committed serious crimes or acts contrary to the purposes of the United Nations, underscoring a balance between humanitarian duties and host state sovereignty.^[4] Despite their influence, implementation varies, with some states interpreting exclusions narrowly amid debates over abuse, though the texts themselves prioritize verifiable persecution over mass influxes.^[46]

Key Obligations, Non-Refoulement, and Limitations

States parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees undertake several core obligations toward recognized refugees, including non-discrimination in treatment, access to courts, wage-earning employment, housing, public education, public relief, and freedom of movement within the territory.^[1] These provisions, outlined in Articles 3, 16–24, and 26, aim to ensure refugees receive treatment at least as favorable as that accorded to aliens generally or, in certain cases, nationals, while prohibiting exceptional measures based solely on legal status as a refugee. Additionally, states must facilitate the naturalization of refugees as far as possible under Article 34, though this remains aspirational rather than mandatory.^[1] The principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in Article 33(1), prohibits contracting states from expelling or returning a refugee "in any manner whatsoever" to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.^[1] This obligation applies regardless of the mode or legality of the refugee's entry or presence and extends to indirect refoulement, such as through rejection at the frontier or transfer to unsafe third countries.^[51] As customary international law, non-refoulement binds even non-signatory states in cases involving persecution risks.^[52] Exceptions to non-refoulement are narrowly circumscribed under Article 33(2), permitting refoulement only if there are "reasonable grounds" for regarding the refugee as a danger to the security of the host country or, following a final judgment establishing guilt for a particularly serious crime, as a danger to the community.^[1] Article 32 allows expulsion on broader grounds of national security or public order, but only after due process and with the opportunity for the refugee to submit representations, ensuring procedural safeguards. These exceptions require individualized assessments supported by evidence, not blanket policies, to prevent arbitrary application.^[52] Limitations on refugee protection under the Convention include mandatory exclusions under Article 1F, denying status to individuals who have committed serious non-political crimes outside the host country prior to admission, war crimes, crimes against peace, acts contrary to UN purposes, or particularly serious crimes endangering the community.^[1] States may also lodge reservations upon ratification, potentially limiting application of specific provisions, though core elements like non-refoulement cannot be wholly disavowed. The Convention's refugee definition is temporally restricted to events before January 1, 1951, unless extended by the 1967 Protocol, and does not confer an absolute right to asylum in a preferred country, allowing safe third-country practices where viable alternatives exist. Refugees bear reciprocal duties, such as conforming to host country laws, which can justify denial of benefits if violated.^[1]

National and Regional Practices

European Union Framework

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) establishes a framework for harmonizing asylum procedures, standards for recognition, and reception conditions across EU Member States, building on the 1951 UN Refugee Convention while aiming to prevent forum shopping and ensure efficient processing. Initiated in 1999 through the Treaty of Amsterdam, CEAS comprises key legislative instruments including the Dublin Regulation, Asylum Procedures Directive, Qualification Directive, and Reception Conditions Directive, which set minimum standards for examining claims, defining eligibility for refugee status or subsidiary protection, and providing material assistance to applicants.^[53]^[54]^[55] The Dublin Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013), recast from earlier versions dating to 2003, determines the Member State responsible for processing an asylum application, prioritizing criteria such as family ties, prior issuance of visas or residence permits, and—absent those—the state of first irregular entry, to enable swift examination by one state and uphold the non-refoulement principle while curbing multiple applications. This has placed disproportionate pressure on frontline states like Greece and Italy, which recorded over 40% of EU irregular arrivals in recent years, leading to transfers numbering only about 25,000 annually against hundreds of thousands of requests due to practical and legal obstacles.^[56]^[57] Supporting directives include the recast Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU), which outlines grounds for granting refugee status to those facing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or social group membership, or subsidiary protection for risks of death penalty, torture, or indiscriminate violence in armed conflict; and the recast Reception Conditions Directive (2013/33/EU), mandating minimum provisions for housing, food, healthcare, and education access, though implementation varies, with some states imposing restrictions on movement or employment to deter secondary migration. The Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU) standardizes examination timelines, appeals, and border procedures for manifestly unfounded claims, emphasizing individualized assessments.^[58]^[59] In 2024, EU+ countries (including Norway and Switzerland) processed approximately 1 million first-time asylum applications, down 11% from 2023 peaks driven by conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, with recognition rates averaging around 40-50% at first instance, varying by nationality—higher for Syrians (over 90%) and lower for economic migrants from safe origins. The New Pact on Migration and Asylum, adopted on May 14, 2024, reforms CEAS by introducing mandatory solidarity mechanisms, such as relocation quotas or financial contributions from states refusing relocations, enhanced screening at borders within seven days, accelerated procedures for low-recognition nationalities, and crisis response tools for mass influxes, set to apply from mid-2026 after a two-year preparation period.^[60]^[61]^[62]^[63] These measures address Dublin's imbalances but retain opt-outs for some states and emphasize returns, reflecting empirical pressures from over 1 million annual arrivals since 2022 amid global displacement exceeding 100 million.^[64]

United States Implementation

The United States implements the right of asylum primarily through the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Refugee Act of 1980, which codified a statutory definition of "refugee" aligned with the United Nations' 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, to which the U.S. acceded in 1968.^[65]^[66] This framework distinguishes asylum from refugee resettlement abroad, allowing individuals physically present in the U.S. or at a port of entry to apply if they demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.^[67] Successful applicants receive protection from removal, work authorization after 150 days, and a path to permanent residency after one year.^[67] Asylum claims follow two main tracks: affirmative and defensive. Affirmative asylum involves applicants not in removal proceedings filing Form I-589 with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), followed by an interview with an asylum officer; grants occur if eligibility is established, but denials lead to referral to immigration court.^[68] Defensive asylum arises during removal proceedings before an immigration judge in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), often after a negative credible fear screening or other enforcement actions.^[67] For those subject to expedited removal—typically recent border crossers without valid entry documents—Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers conduct initial screenings, referring cases to USCIS asylum officers for credible fear interviews, where applicants must show a significant possibility of establishing eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.^[69] Positive credible fear determinations advance cases to full merits review, either affirmatively or defensively, while negative outcomes permit swift removal, subject to supervisory review.^[69] The principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting return to places of likely persecution or torture, is incorporated through asylum, withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), ratified by the U.S. in 1994.^[70] These mechanisms apply regardless of entry manner, though exceptions exist for firm resettlement in a safe third country or aggravated felony convictions barring relief.^[67] Implementation has faced challenges from massive caseloads, with EOIR reporting nearly 1.5 million pending asylum cases at the end of fiscal year 2024, contributing to average wait times exceeding four years and releases into the interior pending adjudication.^[71] In fiscal year 2023, USCIS and EOIR granted asylum to 54,350 individuals, including 22,300 affirmatively, amid rising denials; by October 2024, immigration court grant rates had fallen to 35.8%, reflecting stricter adjudications and higher no-show rates in backlog cases.^[72]^[73] Fraudulent claims, often involving fabricated persecution narratives or coached testimony, have strained the system, with U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessments identifying vulnerabilities in detection despite USCIS fraud units' efforts.^[74] Enforcement responses include policies like the Migrant Protection Protocols (Remain in Mexico, 2019–2022) and Biden administration measures in June 2024 suspending asylum processing when southwest border encounters averaged over 2,500 daily for seven days, with exceptions for unaccompanied minors and trafficking victims; a September 2024 final rule further restricted eligibility by presuming ineligibility for those bypassing safe third countries or failing to seek protection en route.^[75]^[76] These restrictions, aimed at curbing irregular migration, have been litigated for potential non-refoulement conflicts but prioritize border management amid record encounters exceeding 2.4 million in fiscal year 2023.^[77]^[78]

United Kingdom Post-Brexit Policies

Following Brexit on January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom ceased participation in the European Union's Dublin Regulation, which had previously allowed returns of asylum seekers to the first EU member state of entry, thereby increasing the UK's responsibility for processing claims from irregular arrivals, particularly via small boat crossings in the English Channel.^[79] ^[80] The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 introduced reforms distinguishing between "safe" and "unsafe" routes to asylum, imposing penalties on those facilitating illegal entry, and prioritizing claims from individuals arriving through legal pathways while deeming irregular entrants—such as Channel crossers—less credible for protection needs.^[81] This act aimed to deter dangerous migrations amid rising arrivals, with small boat detections totaling 45,756 in 2022, predominantly from Albania, Afghanistan, and Syria, 90% of whom subsequently claimed asylum.^[82] The Illegal Migration Act 2023, receiving Royal Assent on July 20, 2023, further restricted access by rendering asylum applications inadmissible for those entering irregularly after March 7, 2023, mandating detention and removal of such individuals to "safe third countries," and prohibiting settlement or citizenship for affected claimants.^[83] ^[84] This measure targeted the Channel crisis, where arrivals fell to 29,437 in 2023—95% claiming asylum—yet contributed to a processing backlog exceeding 100,000 cases by mid-2023, with fiscal costs including nearly £9 million daily for asylum hotels.^[82] ^[85] Complementing this, the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 enabled deportations to Rwanda for offshore processing, though no flights occurred before the Conservative government's defeat in July 2024.^[86] Under the Labour government elected in July 2024, the Rwanda scheme was terminated in July 2024, with funds redirected toward enforcement and returns, amid ongoing high irregular flows—36,816 small boat arrivals in 2024 (95% asylum claims) and 36,734 by October 21, 2025, surpassing prior years' pace despite bilateral deals like the UK-France "one in, one out" arrangement announced in August 2025.^[87] ^[88] ^[82] The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2025 repeals key Illegal Migration Act provisions, introduces enhanced border security powers and offenses for smuggling, and extends the refugee settlement period beyond five years to prioritize integration and reduce incentives for unfounded claims, while aiming to clear the backlog through faster decisions—reducing it by 8% to March 2025, though initial grant rates dropped to 52%.^[86] ^[89] ^[90] Asylum hotel usage has declined from over 400 in 2023 to under 210 by September 2025, reflecting efforts to curb costs exceeding £8 billion annually pre-reforms.^[85] Since 2018, approximately 168,000 small boat arrivals have claimed asylum by June 2025, underscoring persistent pressures from safe third country transit without Dublin returns.^[91]

Restrictive Approaches in Other Jurisdictions

Australia maintains one of the strictest asylum regimes globally through its offshore processing policy, reinstated in 2012 under Operation Sovereign Borders, which mandates that unauthorized maritime arrivals be intercepted at sea and transferred to processing centers in Nauru or Papua New Guinea, barring resettlement in Australia regardless of refugee status determination.^[92] This approach has effectively deterred boat arrivals, with zero successful unauthorized maritime crossings reported since 2013, though it has drawn international criticism for conditions in offshore facilities, including a January 2025 UN Human Rights Committee finding of arbitrary detention responsibility retained by Australia.^[93] The policy prioritizes border security and national sovereignty, processing claims externally to prevent incentives for dangerous irregular migration routes.^[94] Japan exhibits similarly stringent practices, with asylum recognition rates historically below 1% for much of the past decade, rising modestly to 9% in 2023 before declining, granting only 190 refugee statuses in 2024 out of thousands of applications.^[95]^[96] Despite ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention, Japan's Immigration Services Agency applies rigorous evidentiary standards and limits humanitarian stays, rejecting 73% of first-instance claims in recent data, often citing insufficient proof of persecution or economic motivations over genuine flight from harm.^[97] This low uptake reflects policy emphasis on controlled immigration amid demographic pressures, with public support for admissions tied to perceived low risks of integration challenges.^[98] Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's administration since 2010, has pursued defiant restrictions including a 2015 southern border fence, closure of transit zones in 2020, and redirection of asylum applications to embassies in Serbia or Ukraine, effectively suspending in-country processing and prompting a €200 million fine plus daily penalties from the European Court of Justice in June 2024 for non-compliance with EU directives.^[99]^[100] These measures, framed as defenses against mass irregular migration following 2015 surges, prioritize rapid deportations and external bordering, with Orbán advocating EU-wide reforms to codify such border closures.^[101] Switzerland, outside the EU, enforces accelerated procedures and high rejection thresholds, removing 7,205 rejected asylum seekers in 2024—an 18.5% increase from 2023—while maintaining a 47% overall recognition rate, with in-merit cases at 69% but many fast-tracked claims denied entry outright via 24-hour border assessments.^[102]^[103] The State Secretariat for Migration's policies emphasize swift returns for "manifestly unfounded" applications from safe countries, contributing to a projected decline in inflows for 2025 amid tightened federal enforcement.^[104]^[105]

Controversies and Criticisms

Systemic Abuse and Fraudulent Claims

In Western asylum systems, a substantial portion of applications fail to meet the legal criteria for refugee status under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, with rejection rates often exceeding 50% at first instance and higher upon appeal, indicating widespread misuse by economic migrants seeking to circumvent immigration controls.^[106] In the European Union, first-instance recognition rates averaged approximately 42% in 2024, but varied sharply by nationality, with near-universal approvals for Syrians (90%) contrasted by minimal grants for applicants from relatively stable countries like Turkey or Albania, where claims frequently stem from economic rather than persecutory motives.^[107] These patterns reflect systemic abuse, as evidenced by the surge in applications from non-persecuted origins, facilitated by smuggling networks that coach claimants on fabricating persecution narratives to exploit non-refoulement protections.^[108] Fraudulent tactics include the use of forged documents, inconsistent testimonies, and coordinated false claims, which strain administrative resources and enable prolonged stays during processing. In the United Kingdom, Home Office data show thousands of abusive applications annually, with former officials describing the system as "rife with abuse" due to repeat filings by rejected claimants evading removal.^[108] A notable example is age misrepresentation, where adults pose as unaccompanied minors to access enhanced protections; in the year to September 2021, 66% of resolved age disputes determined claimants to be adults, contributing to backlogs and resource diversion from genuine cases.^[109] Similarly, the share of asylum claimants in UK detention with criminal records rose by 15 percentage points between 2017 and 2019, suggesting exploitation by individuals ineligible for protection.^[108] In the United States, asylum denial rates in immigration courts have reached record highs, exceeding 70% in recent fiscal years, often due to discrepancies in evidence or applications from countries lacking widespread persecution. Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) proceedings reveal patterns of frivolous claims, including those leveraging the credible fear screening process to enter and then abscond, with policies like the Migrant Protection Protocols previously reducing such abuse by requiring third-country presence during adjudication.^[110] While precise fraud quantification remains elusive due to evidentiary challenges—official terminations for proven fraud are rare—indicators such as high no-show rates for hearings and applications from safe origin countries underscore the incentive structure that rewards unsubstantiated filings over legitimate resettlement channels.^[111] These abuses erode public trust and overburden host systems, as economic incentives drive mass claims far beyond the Convention's intent for individualized persecution cases, with smuggling operations profiting from the asymmetry between lax entry and rigorous verification. Government reports and independent analyses, drawing from operational data rather than self-reported applicant narratives, consistently highlight this disconnect, though underreporting persists due to prosecutorial burdens in proving intent.^[108] Reforms targeting accelerated screening and penalties for manifestly unfounded claims have aimed to deter such patterns, yet persistent high volumes indicate ongoing systemic vulnerabilities.^[112]

National Security Risks and Crime Correlations

Asylum seekers pose national security risks primarily through inadequate vetting processes and origins in conflict zones prone to radicalization, enabling individuals on terrorism watchlists to enter host countries. U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered over 170 individuals on the Terrorist Screening Dataset at the southwest border in fiscal year 2023, many attempting to claim asylum, though apprehensions declined in 2024 amid stricter enforcement. In Europe, the 2015-2016 migrant influx included cases like Anis Amri, a rejected Tunisian asylum seeker who conducted the 2016 Berlin Christmas market truck attack, killing 12, after entering via the asylum route from Italy. Similarly, the 2016 Würzburg train axe attack was perpetrated by a 17-year-old Afghan asylum seeker who had arrived months earlier and pledged allegiance to ISIS. Peer-reviewed analysis indicates that migrants from terrorist-prone states, often seeking asylum, transmit terrorism risks to destinations, with a 1% increase in such inflows correlating to elevated attack probabilities. These incidents highlight systemic vulnerabilities, as initial asylum screenings rely on self-reported data from unstable origin countries, where intelligence sharing is limited, allowing jihadist networks to exploit humanitarian channels. Crime correlations with asylum seekers are evident in overrepresentation statistics across Western jurisdictions, driven by demographic factors like young male inflows from high-violence regions and socioeconomic marginalization post-arrival. In Germany, following the 2015-2016 asylum wave of over 1 million arrivals, non-German suspects accounted for 30-40% of violent crimes by 2018 despite comprising 2% of the population, with asylum seekers specifically linked to spikes in sexual assaults and gang rapes, as in the 2015-2016 Cologne New Year's Eve incidents involving over 1,200 reported attacks by North African and Middle Eastern migrants, many asylum applicants. A causal study of Turkey's 2015-2019 refugee surge found a 2-4.75% annual crime increase per refugee influx, equating to roughly 75,000 additional incidents, concentrated in property and violent offenses. In the UK, a 1% local increase in asylum seekers correlates with a 1.1% rise in property crime, per longitudinal data from 2002-2009 immigration waves. Peer-reviewed evidence from Greece's Aegean islands shows a 1.7-2.5% crime uptick per 1% refugee share increase, persisting beyond arrival year. These patterns stem from selection effects—asylum flows draw disproportionately from conflict zones with normalized violence—and lax integration, contrasting with lower rates among vetted economic migrants; however, official underreporting and definitional exclusions (e.g., migration-specific offenses) in some datasets may understate totals.^[113]^[114]^[115]^[116]^[117]^[118] The fiscal burdens of asylum systems on host nations include substantial expenditures for processing claims, providing accommodation, healthcare, education, and welfare benefits. In the United Kingdom, the total cost of the asylum system reached £5.4 billion in the financial year 2023/24, with approximately £3 billion allocated to hotel accommodations alone amid a backlog of claims. ^[79] Across the European Union, a 2025 update to the European Commission's projections indicates that non-EU immigration, including asylum seekers, yields a negative net fiscal impact in nearly all member states, even assuming optimal integration scenarios, due to high initial and sustained public spending relative to tax contributions. ^[119] The International Monetary Fund estimates that the 2022 surge in asylum-related migration imposed initial fiscal costs equivalent to 0.2% of EU GDP overall, rising to 1% in the most affected countries like Germany and Sweden, primarily from heightened demands on social services. ^[120] Refugees and asylum seekers exhibit elevated rates of welfare dependency compared to native populations, exacerbating long-term fiscal strains. A 2019 European Commission technical report on EU countries found that non-EU migrants, including those granted asylum, have a significantly higher probability of receiving public assistance benefits than natives, with gaps persisting due to lower employment rates and skill mismatches. ^[121] In nations with restrictive labor market access for new arrivals, such as initial bans on work in several EU states, this dependency often extends years beyond arrival, as documented in a 2024 European Parliament study noting prolonged welfare reliance among refugees despite eventual policy relaxations. ^[122] These patterns contribute to net negative economic contributions for low-skilled asylum cohorts, contrasting with selective high-skilled migration, per OECD cross-country analyses of immigrant fiscal balances. ^[123] Social impacts manifest in strained public services and elevated security concerns. Asylum inflows have intensified housing shortages and school overcrowding in high-reception areas; for instance, in Germany following the 2015-2016 peak, local authorities reported acute pressures on municipal resources, with integration costs adding billions annually. ^[124] Crime statistics reveal overrepresentation of certain asylum-origin groups: in Sweden, foreign-born individuals, including recent migrants, account for disproportionate shares of suspects in violent and property crimes, as confirmed by government analyses linking this to integration failures and socioeconomic factors. ^[125] Similarly, Nordic empirical reviews document immigrants' overrepresentation in delinquency rates across multiple offense categories, with asylum seekers from conflict zones showing particularly high involvement. ^[126] Cultural impacts include challenges to social cohesion and shifts in community norms. Empirical studies from high-inflow contexts, such as Rwanda's hosting of Congolese refugees, indicate long-term alterations in local social interactions, with host populations experiencing reduced interpersonal trust and heightened intergroup tensions due to resource competition. ^[127] In Europe, direct exposure to asylum hosting correlates with decreased citizen support for further immigration and redistribution policies, as evidenced by Swiss panel data showing temporary declines in pro-migrant attitudes among affected communities. ^[128] Mass asylum migration from culturally distant regions has fostered parallel societies in urban enclaves of Sweden and Germany, where low assimilation rates—measured by language proficiency and value alignment—perpetuate segregation, per qualitative assessments of integration outcomes. ^[125] These dynamics underscore causal links between rapid demographic changes and erosion of shared civic norms, though mitigated in cases of enforced integration policies.

Recent Developments and Reforms

2020s Policy Tightenings in Western Countries

In the early 2020s, several Western countries responded to surges in irregular migration, with EU-wide irregular border crossings peaking at over 1 million in 2023 before declining 38% in 2024, by implementing asylum restrictions aimed at deterrence, faster processing, and burden-sharing.^[129] ^[130] These measures included expedited border procedures, inadmissibility for irregular entrants, and offshore processing, driven by national security, fiscal, and integration challenges.^[131] The European Union's New Pact on Migration and Asylum, adopted on May 14, 2024, and set for full implementation by June 2026, mandates screening and accelerated border procedures for asylum seekers from safe countries or with low recognition rates, enabling quicker returns without full merits assessment.^[62] ^[63] It introduces a list of seven "safe countries of origin" published April 16, 2025—Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Kosovo, Morocco, Montenegro, and Tunisia—to streamline rejections and returns.^[130] Member states must share responsibility through relocation or financial contributions, with non-compliance penalties, addressing uneven burdens where frontline states like Italy and Greece handled disproportionate arrivals.^[132] In the United Kingdom, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, enacted July 2023, deems asylum claims inadmissible for those entering irregularly—such as via small boats across the English Channel—and mandates detention and removal to third countries like Rwanda, aiming to deter unsafe routes used by over 45,000 arrivals in 2022.^[133] ^[79] Although a processing ban for post-July 20, 2023 claims was lifted in July 2024, the Act preserves removal powers and limits protections, reflecting post-Brexit efforts to control borders independently of EU frameworks.^[134] The United States, under President Biden, issued a proclamation on June 4, 2024, suspending noncitizen entry and restricting asylum eligibility when southern border encounters averaged over 2,500 daily over seven days, effective June 5, 2024, and applying to most unlawful crossers regardless of claim merit. This built on prior Title 42 expulsions, targeting over 2.4 million encounters in fiscal year 2023, with exceptions for unaccompanied minors and legal pathways; an updated rule in September 2024 refined thresholds to 1,500 daily for lifting restrictions. ^[135] Italy, under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni since October 2022, pursued offshore processing via a 2023 agreement with Albania to detain and assess up to 30,000 migrants annually intercepted at sea, reducing irregular arrivals by 60% from 2023 to 2024.^[136] Law No. 187/2024, effective January 2025, further regulates worker entries while tightening asylum via enhanced sea patrols and returns, though challenged by EU court rulings on safe third-country designations.^[137] ^[138] Nordic countries exemplified stringent shifts: Denmark maintained a "zero asylum" paradigm announced in 2021, emphasizing temporary protection over permanent residency and externalizing processing to limit inflows.^[139] Sweden, after 2022 elections, reduced resettled refugees from 5,000 in 2022 to 900 annually, mandated asylum seekers reside in state-allocated accommodations from September 1, 2025, to curb self-housing and expedite decisions, and explored Denmark-style transit centers for claims.^[140] ^[141] These reforms, prolonging 2016 temporary laws, responded to integration strains from prior high approvals.^[142]

Responses to Global Migration Pressures

In response to surges in asylum applications driven by conflicts, economic instability, and demographic pressures, states have increasingly adopted externalization strategies, processing asylum claims in third countries or transit states to alleviate domestic system overload. For instance, Australia's Operation Sovereign Borders, initiated on September 18, 2013, mandates the interdiction and transfer of unauthorized boat arrivals to offshore facilities in Nauru and Papua New Guinea, where claims are processed without the option of resettlement in Australia.^[143] This policy correlated with a sharp decline in maritime arrivals, from over 20,000 in 2013 to near zero by 2014, as official statistics indicate no successful boat arrivals since July 19, 2013.^[144]^[145] Similarly, the United States has pursued safe third country agreements to redirect asylum flows, exemplified by bilateral pacts signed in 2019 with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, requiring asylum seekers transiting those nations to apply for protection there before reaching the U.S. border.^[146] These arrangements expanded under subsequent administrations, including a 2025 agreement with Paraguay allowing U.S.-based asylum seekers to pursue claims in Paraguay, and another with Belize as part of broader enforcement measures.^[147]^[148] The U.S.-Canada Safe Third Country Agreement, originally implemented in 2004 and amended in 2023, further bars irregular border crossers from claiming asylum in the destination country if eligible in the other, aiming to prevent forum shopping amid peak encounters exceeding 2.4 million in fiscal year 2023.^[149]^[150] At the supranational level, the European Union's Pact on Migration and Asylum, adopted on April 10, 2024, introduces mandatory solidarity mechanisms, including financial contributions or relocation quotas for member states facing disproportionate inflows, alongside accelerated border procedures for screening claims within 12 weeks and crisis derogations allowing temporary suspensions of family unity rights.^[63]^[64] This framework responds to post-2015 pressures, where applications peaked at 2.4 million in 2023, by emphasizing external partnerships, such as funding to origin and transit countries for readmissions and capacity-building, to reduce irregular entries by an estimated 30% through pre-entry deterrence.^[151]^[152] Other jurisdictions have implemented return and containment pacts; for example, the EU-Turkey Statement of March 20, 2016, provided €6 billion in aid to Turkey in exchange for stemming flows and accepting returnees, halving Greek island arrivals from 190,000 in 2015 to under 30,000 by 2017.^[153] Complementing these, the UNHCR's Global Compact on Refugees, endorsed in 2018, promotes burden-sharing through predictable funding and resettlement pathways, though implementation has lagged, with only 17% of needs met in hosting states like Turkey and Lebanon by 2023.^[154] These measures collectively prioritize causal deterrence—disrupting smuggling networks and incentivizing safe pathways—over unrestricted access, reflecting empirical evidence that unvetted mass inflows strain resources and public support without proportionally increasing genuine refugee identification.^[155]

References

[1]
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees | OHCHR
Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory ...
[2]
Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants - Amnesty International
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14), which states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries ...
[3]
[PDF] The right of asylum
Traditional doctrine bases the right of asylum on the right of a State in its sovereignty to decide whom it shall admit to its territory.
[4]
The 1951 Refugee Convention - UNHCR
The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the key legal documents that form the basis of UNHCR's work. They define the term 'refugee' and outline ...
[5]
Are the vast majority of asylum claims without merit? - PolitiFact
May 17, 2019 · Crenshaw said that about 80 to 90 percent of individuals seeking asylum do not have a valid claim. While data shows that in 2018 about 16% of ...<|separator|>
[6]
Global Refugee Asylum System: What Went Wrong and How to Fix It
Sep 25, 2025 · ... asylum seekers from being subject to abuse and, frankly, from abusing the system. I was meeting the other day with an ambassador in ...
[7]
Constrained by its Roots: How the Origins of the Global Asylum ...
Territorial asylum—the principle that a refugee must reach the territory of a host country in order to lodge a protection claim—has evolved as the principal ...
[8]
[PDF] HANDBOOK ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR ... - UNHCR
... right of asylum‑seekers to apply for asylum through individual procedures. The ending of a prima facie approach signals that the asylum system is back to ...
[9]
[PDF] Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee ...
FOREWORD. I). Refugee status, on the universal level, is governed by the 1951 Convention and the 1967. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.<|control11|><|separator|>
[10]
Refugees - UNHCR
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee conflict or persecution and has crossed an international border to seek safety. They cannot return to their ...
[11]
Refugees and Asylum | USCIS
Aug 27, 2025 · Refugee or asylum status may be granted to aliens who have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of ...Refugees · Asylum · Temporary Protected Status
[12]
Asylum and refugee status - UNHCR Frequently asked questions
The 1951 Refugee Convention contains the foundational definition of who is a refugee and outlines the basic rights which countries should afford refugees.What is asylum? · Where can I apply for asylum? · Who decides who is a refugee?
[13]
The false dichotomy between 'economic migrants' and refugees
The term 'economic migrant' has no legal definition. It is not mentioned in any international instruments of migration law. 'Migrant worker' is used in the UN ...
[14]
Migrants, asylum seekers, IDPs, refugees and immigrants
May 15, 2025 · An asylum seeker is someone who is seeking international protection from dangers in his or her home country, but whose claim for refugee status ...<|separator|>
[15]
The Distinction Between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants
May 14, 2020 · While the law has prescribed a very clear difference between asylum seekers and economic migrants, States have conflated the meaning of the two.
[16]
Refugees, Asylum Seekers & Migrants: A Crucial Difference
Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants can return home if they wish. This distinction is important for governments, since countries handle ...
[17]
Hiketeia and asylia in ancient Greek mythical and political thought
Sep 13, 2019 · This article, using as a starting point the concept of supplication and asylum seeking in archaic Greek thought, examines cases of supplication ...
[18]
The Ancient Origins of Asylum: Part II - The Asylumist
Jan 29, 2014 · In ancient Greece, asylum was in holy places for fugitives. Romans used it for newcomers, but later restricted it, and the sanctuary was ...
[19]
NOVEMBER 2013 Money and asylum seekers in ancient Rome
The terms 'money' and 'asylum' were born a few meters from each other in archaic Rome and were reflected in its republican coinage.<|separator|>
[20]
The Right of Asylum in Ancient Rome | Roczniki Nauk Prawnych
Nov 13, 2019 · The right of asylum was granted to temples by virtue of the law of consecration. Together with the fall of pagan religion, pagan temples lost ...
[21]
The Ancient Origins of Asylum: Part 1 - The Asylumist
Jan 7, 2014 · In the first century AD, the Roman Emperor Tiberius commissioned an inquiry into the origin of asylum in Greece. At the time, the Romans had ...
[22]
[PDF] Wiesáaw Mossakowski (Toru ) The issue of temple asylum (asylum ...
In the ancient Rome, asylum defined as one of the obstacles in effecting the penal repression6 was originally based on the territorial factor7. Polytheistic ...
[23]
Claiming 'Sanctuary' in a Medieval Church Could Save Your Life ...
Apr 18, 2019 · The concept of sanctuary predates Christianity, going back at least as far as Greek and Roman temples that offered protection to fugitives.
[24]
What It Was Like to Seek Asylum in Medieval England - Atlas Obscura
Jul 24, 2015 · These early asylums were established under the belief that the gods (or god) were inviolable, and thus their temples and holy sites shared this ...
[25]
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780295999142-005/html
[26]
Sanctuary, Penance, and Dispute Settlement under Charlemagne
gest that the right of sanctuary and the practice of penance were of particular importance in the management of conflicts in the Carolingian age.
[27]
Stories of sanctuary | UCI School of Humanities
Oct 25, 2021 · In medieval England, roughly 1,000 people sought sanctuary every year. To take sanctuary meant “to flee to the church” before going on trial ...Missing: religious | Show results with:religious<|separator|>
[28]
[PDF] Sanctuary in mid to late medieval England and its
The king allowed sanctuary's incorporation into common law and protected it as a practice because it functioned as a strategy of reining in the ambition of ...
[29]
Sanctuary and Crime in the Middle Ages, 400-1500 on JSTOR
Until the sixteenth century, every major medieval legal tradition afforded protections to fugitive criminals who took sanctuary in churches. Sanctuary ...Missing: regulations | Show results with:regulations
[30]
[PDF] Europe and its Political Refugees in the 19 th Century - HAL-SHS
Apr 12, 2020 · The revolutions of the 19th century led to the emergence of a new figure – that of the political refugee – and to new policies for receiving ...Missing: codification | Show results with:codification
[31]
The Right to Asylum: Britain's 1905 Aliens Act and the Evolution of ...
May 1, 2014 · The Aliens Act was passed in response to the persecution of Eastern European Jews and their forced migration, mainly from the Russian Empire into Britain.
[32]
Refugee Timeline - USCIS
Jan 24, 2025 · This timeline traces the major events and policies that affected refugee admissions under the INS and its predecessor agencies from 1891 to 2003.
[33]
[PDF] The Development of Refugee Law
Refugee law developed in the last six decades, linked to Nansen's work, and the 1951 Convention, which defined refugees and their rights.
[34]
[PDF] On the history of the international protection of refugees - ICRC
Whereas the history of protection of refugees dates back at least a few centuries, not to mention refugee situations in Antiquity, the history of ...<|separator|>
[35]
[PDF] THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF REFUGEE PROTECTION
Refugee protection origins are linked to WWII, with the 1951 Convention as a revision of earlier agreements, and the League of Nations as the first ...
[36]
Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations
Article 14. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions ...
[37]
History of UNHCR
Article 14 (1) of the Declaration states: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” © UNHCR/J.Cadoux. 1950.
[38]
Universal Declaration of Human Rights at 70: 30 Articles on ... - ohchr
Nov 23, 2018 · Article 14 makes it clear people cannot be granted asylum simply to avoid prosecution for “non-political crimes or acts contrary to the purposes ...
[39]
https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/17/2/293/1548262
[40]
[PDF] The Changing Landscape of Asylum and Refugee Laws and Human ...
International refugee law does not operate in isolation. The legal scheme is inextricably intertwined with international human rights law and various ...
[41]
Defining “Refugees”—An Exclusionary Legacy - USCRI
May 20, 2025 · ... Article 14 of the UDHR—the right to seek asylum. Other countries were against including it, so as to not imply an absolute right to asylum.<|separator|>
[42]
Article 14(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ...
Sep 6, 2008 · Article 14(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that the right to seek and to enjoy asylum, as guaranteed in article 14(1), “may not be ...
[43]
Article 14: The right to seek and enjoy asylum - Digital Freedom Fund
According to Article 14 of the UDHR, everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy asylum. The declaration is regarded as a milestone in international human ...<|separator|>
[44]
2 . Convention relating to the Status of Refugees - UNTC
2 The former Yugoslavia had signed and ratified the Convention on 28 July 1951 ... provisions issued by the Italian Government since the ratification of ...Missing: key | Show results with:key
[45]
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees - Refworld
Summary. Refugees are among the most vulnerable people in the world. The 1951 Refugee Convention, supplemented by its 1967 Protocol, help protect them. They ...
[46]
[PDF] The 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol - UNHCR
The 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol clarify refugee rights, define who is a refugee, and are the only global legal instruments covering most aspects of a ...
[47]
[PDF] THE REFUGEE CONVENTION, 1951 - UNHCR
frontiers, they could not help but grant them right of asylum, and possibly refugee status. In the case in point, the normal application of the Convention might ...
[48]
Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees | OHCHR
The present Protocol shall be applied by the States Parties hereto without any geographic limitation, save that existing declarations made by States already ...
[49]
Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees
The Protocol entered into force on 4 October 1967, in accordance with its article VIII, on the day of deposit of the sixth instrument of accession.
[50]
The 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol relating ... - UNHCR
The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol provide the internationally recognized definition of a refugee and outline the legal rights they are entitled ...Missing: text summary
[51]
[PDF] Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
treatment under the 1951 Convention if amounting to an arbitrary or discriminatory restriction of rights foreseen under international refugee and human ...
[52]
UNHCR Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement - Refworld
While the principle of non-refoulement is basic, it is recognised that there may be certain legitimate exceptions to the principle. Article 33 (2) of the 1951 ...
[53]
Asylum in the EU - Migration and Home Affairs - European Union
The Asylum Procedure Regulation provides for a common, fair and efficient procedure for handling asylum applications. The Regulation introduces simpler, clearer ...
[54]
2.1 The Common European Asylum System and current issues
The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is a legal and policy framework developed to guarantee harmonised and uniform standards for people seeking ...
[55]
1. What is the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)?
Oct 21, 2024 · Since 1999, the European Union (EU) has defined the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as a body of laws governing the treatment of people ...
[56]
Country responsible for asylum application (Dublin Regulation)
The objective of the Dublin III Regulation is to ensure quick access to the asylum procedures and the examination of an application on the merits by a single, ...
[57]
Reforming the Common European Asylum System | Topics
Apr 16, 2024 · The system according to the Dublin regulation, dating back to 2003, aimed at identifying a single EU country responsible for handling an asylum ...
[58]
Common European Asylum System - Oxford Public International Law
... Qualification Directive (recast) (Directive 2011/95/EU); and Reception Conditions Directive (recast) (Directive 2013/33/EU). The CEAS hence consists of both ...
[59]
Reception conditions - Migration and Home Affairs - European Union
Apr 2, 2025 · The recast Reception Conditions Directive sets minimum standards for the provision of assistance to asylum applicants across the EU.Assessment of special... · Restrictions of freedom of...
[60]
EU+ asylum applications decrease by 11% in 2024
Mar 3, 2025 · EU+ asylum applications decreased by 11% in 2024, with Syrians, Afghans, and Turks decreasing significantly. Germany received the most, but ...
[61]
Asylum seekers in the EU: Six things to know about 2024 report
Mar 5, 2025 · The bloc received approximately one million applications for asylum in 2024, breaching the one million mark for the third year in a row. But ...
[62]
Migration and asylum pact - consilium.europa.eu
The Council adopted the EU's pact on migration and asylum on 14 May 2024. This establishes a set of rules that will help to: manage arrivals in an orderly way.
[63]
Pact on Migration and Asylum
The Pact on Migration and Asylum is a set of new rules managing migration and establishing a common asylum system at EU level.Legislative files in a nutshell · Managing migration responsibly
[64]
What is the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum? | The IRC in the EU
Jul 23, 2024 · While the new regulations introduced by the Pact entered into force in June 2024, these will only be applied in 2026 after a two-year ...
[65]
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Background - USCIS
The Refugee Act of 1980 not only provided for the admission and adjustment of status of refugees but also established procedures for aliens to seek asylum.
[66]
[PDF] 94 STAT. 102 PUBLIC LAW 96-212—MAR. 17, 1980 ... - GovInfo
This law revises refugee admission procedures, establishes a permanent admission process, and sets a limit of 50,000 refugees per year for 1980-1982.
[67]
Asylum in the United States - American Immigration Council
May 9, 2025 · In accordance with U.S. law, to apply for asylum, an individual must be physically present in the United States or arrive at a port of entry.
[68]
The Affirmative Asylum Process | USCIS
Oct 17, 2025 · An Asylum Merits Interview with USCIS after a positive credible fear determination, meaning you were placed in expedited removal proceedings, ...
[69]
Credible Fear Screenings - Asylum - USCIS
Jan 24, 2025 · You must be referred to an asylum officer for an interview to determine whether you have a credible fear of persecution or torture.
[70]
Non-Refoulement under the Trump Administration | ASIL
Dec 3, 2019 · This Insight focuses on three specific and interrelated changes to the US asylum system that have been litigated since late 2018.
[71]
How the U.S. Asylum Process Works | Council on Foreign Relations
At the end of fiscal year 2024, the backlog of asylum cases pending in courts stood at nearly 1.5 million. President Donald Trump has pledged to clamp down on ...
[72]
[PDF] Asylees: 2023 - Office of Homeland Security Statistics
Oct 1, 2024 · The United States provided protection to 54,350 asylees during 2023,3 including 22,300 individuals who were granted asylum affirmatively by U.S. ...
[73]
Asylum Grant Rates Decline by a Third - TRAC
Nov 19, 2024 · The latest case-by-case Court records for October 2024 show asylum grant rates had declined to just 35.8 percent. This is in down sharply from earlier in the ...Missing: backlog | Show results with:backlog
[74]
Additional Actions Needed to Assess and Address Fraud Risks
Dec 2, 2015 · Asylum officers and USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) Directorate immigration officers told GAO that they can identify ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[75]
FACT SHEET: Joint DHS-DOJ Final Rule Issued to Restrict Asylum ...
Sep 30, 2024 · President Biden has issued an updated Proclamation to amend the June Proclamation that temporarily suspended and limited the entry of noncitizens across the ...
[76]
What do President Biden's border policies mean for asylum seekers?
Nov 1, 2024 · On June 4, 2024, President Biden issued a proclamation that temporarily suspends the right to asylum for people who arrive at the southern ...
[77]
Article: Biden's Mixed Immigration Legacy - Migration Policy Institute
Dec 10, 2024 · The Biden administration demonstrated a record level of activity on immigration, advancing 605 immigration-related executive actions as of December 6.<|separator|>
[78]
[PDF] Outmatched: The U.S. Asylum System Faces Record Demands
... U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal year (FY) 2023 and a backlog of. 2 million ... Asylum Statistics FY 2019,” accessed October 2, 2023; USCIS,. “Number of ...
[79]
Asylum and refugee resettlement in the UK - Migration Observatory
Aug 1, 2025 · The number of asylum claims hit a record high in 2024 In 2024, around 108,000 people claimed asylum in the UK, the highest since records began ...
[80]
2.3.6 UK withdrawal from the EU and its implications on asylum
The UK can no longer return asylum applicants who travelled to the UK from an EU Member State, under the rules of the Dublin III Regulation.
[81]
UK asylum policy after Brexit - UK in a changing Europe
Jul 29, 2021 · The government has now introduced its Nationality and Borders Bill to reform the UK's asylum system. This explainer sets out the UK's pre-Brexit ...
[82]
Channel Crossing Tracker - Migration Watch UK
In 2022, 90% of the 45,755 small boat arrivals claimed asylum. In 2023, 95% of the 29,437 small boat arrivals claimed asylum. In 2024, 95% of the 36,816 ...
[83]
Illegal Migration Act 2023 - Legislation.gov.uk
Illegal Migration Act 2023 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 26 October 2025. There are changes that may be brought into force at ...<|separator|>
[84]
Illegal migration: Dealing with inadmissible asylum applications
May 3, 2024 · The Illegal Migration Act 2023 deems asylum applications as inadmissible if the claimant has entered the UK illegally, but not all the act's provisions have ...What is illegal migration? skip... · How many people have...
[85]
Latest statement in response to small boat crossings
Sep 19, 2025 · From over 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023, costing almost £9 million a day, there are now less than 210.Missing: seeker | Show results with:seeker<|separator|>
[86]
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2025 - GOV.UK
The Bill repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and repeals parts within the Illegal Migration Act 2023. 8. The measures in the ...
[87]
Q&A: The UK's former policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda
Jul 25, 2024 · This Q&A was updated in July 2024 to reflect the Labour government's announcement that it is cancelling the Rwanda scheme and to review the ...
[88]
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8xgkx20dyvo
[89]
Refugees to face longer route to UK settlement rights - BBC
Oct 2, 2025 · Refugees will have to wait longer than the current five years before they can apply to settle permanently in the UK, under changes the ...
[90]
What's changed on refuge and asylum? The new Labour ...
Although the asylum backlog has been reduced – by 8% from when Labour entered power, to March 2025 – the quality of decision-making has fallen too: just 52% of ...
[91]
Asylum statistics - House of Commons Library - UK Parliament
Sep 1, 2025 · In 2024, 47% were granted at initial decision (not counting withdrawals or 'administrative outcomes'). The annual grant rate was lowest in 2004 ...
[92]
Regional processing and resettlement - Department of Home Affairs
Any person entering Australia by boat without a valid visa will be returned or taken to a regional processing country for protection claims assessment.
[93]
Australia responsible for arbitrary detention of asylum seekers in ...
Jan 9, 2025 · Australia responsible for arbitrary detention of asylum seekers in offshore facilities, UN Human Rights Committee finds. 09 January 2025.Missing: details | Show results with:details
[94]
[PDF] Australia: Offshore Processing of Asylum Seekers - Loc
Jan 12, 2024 · The offshore processing and resettlement policy is accompanied by a military-led operation to turn boats carrying asylum seekers back at sea, ...
[95]
Japan Accepts 190 Refugees in 2024 | Nippon.com
Apr 9, 2025 · Japan's Immigration Services Agency announced that 190 people were given refugee status in 2024, which is a decrease of 37.3% year on year.
[96]
Refugee Acceptance into Japan - The Diversity Trust
Japan's acceptance rate was only 9% in 2023, and before that, it remained below 1% for several years. These figures suggest that while Japan is willing to ...
[97]
Asylum applications and refugees in Japan - Worlddata.info
73 percent of asylum applications have been rejected in the first instance. The most successful have been the applications of refugees from Ukraine and from ...
[98]
When Does the Japanese Public Support Refugee Admission?
Oct 30, 2022 · Japan admits very few state-sponsored refugees (roughly 200 in total since 2010) and rejects about 99% of the asylum claims it receives.
[99]
Hungary fined €200M for breaking EU asylum rules - Politico.eu
Jun 13, 2024 · The European Court of Justice on Thursday fined Hungary €200 million for breaking the EU's asylum laws and ignoring an earlier judgment.
[100]
Hungary fined €200 million by ECJ for breaking asylum rules - DW
Jun 13, 2024 · The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on Thursday that Hungary must pay a lump sum of €200 million ($216 million) and a penalty of €1 million per day.Missing: restrictions | Show results with:restrictions
[101]
Hungary's PM Orbán demands new laws tackling migration
Sep 6, 2024 · The bloc takes issue with Budapest's forcing people seeking international protection to travel to Hungarian embassies in Serbia or Ukraine to ...
[102]
Switzerland rejected 18.5% more asylum seekers in 2024 - Swissinfo
Jan 24, 2025 · The number of rejected asylum seekers leaving Switzerland rose by 18.5% last year. The total was 7,205, compared with 6,077 in 2023, ...
[103]
AIDA Country Report on Switzerland – Update on 2024
May 15, 2025 · The asylum recognition rate was 47% and the protection rate for in-merit cases was 69%.Missing: rejection | Show results with:rejection
[104]
Switzerland expects asylum seeker numbers to fall again in 2025
Jan 31, 2025 · Switzerland rejected 18.5% more asylum seekers in 2024 If the predicted further decline in the number of new asylum applications in 2025 ...
[105]
[PDF] Foreign Population and Asylum Statistics 2024 - SEM
Bern, june 2025. Page 3. For the first time in four years, the number of asylum applications decreased in 2024 – to. 27,740 applications, a drop of 8.2 % ...
[106]
Asylum decisions - annual statistics - Statistics Explained - Eurostat
Apr 11, 2025 · In 2024, EU countries granted protection status to 437 900 asylum seekers, up 6.9% compared with 2023 (409 530).Highlights · Main trends in the number of... · First instance decisions on...
[107]
EU asylum requests down by 11% in 2024, but still exceed one million
Mar 3, 2025 · The recognition rate – the chances of a successful application – stood at 42% last year, virtually unchanged. Syrians (90%), Malians (84%), ...
[108]
What is the evidence of asylum fraud? - Migration Watch UK
Sep 23, 2021 · Meanwhile, the Home Office also note that the share of law-breakers claiming asylum while in UK detention rose by 15 percentage points (2017-19) ...
[109]
Asylum abuse by adults pretending to be children
Dec 27, 2021 · There has been a major rise in asylum fraud by adults pretending to be children, with two in three (66%) concluded disputes in the year to September 2021.
[110]
Expert Insight: Examining The Asylum Fraud Loophole
Expert Insight: Examining The Asylum Fraud Loophole. Robert Law April 5, 2023. Key Takeaways. By law, illegal aliens apprehended at the border are to be ...
[111]
Fact Sheet: Asylum Fraud and Immigration Court Absentia Rates
Oct 8, 2021 · Asylum fraud occurs when an asylum seeker knowingly misrepresents information as part of their application for protection.Missing: UNHCR | Show results with:UNHCR
[112]
Asylum Grant Rate in 'Credible Fear' Cases Fell in FY 2021
including illegal migrants — are subject to “expedited removal”. That allows DHS to ...
[113]
[PDF] Homeland Threat Assessment 2025
As overall encounters have declined, so too have encounters with individuals in the Terrorist. Screening Data Set, also known as the “terrorism watchlist,” ...
[114]
Does Immigration Induce Terrorism? | The Journal of Politics
The results suggest that migrants stemming from terrorist-prone states moving to another country are indeed an important vehicle through which terrorism does ...
[115]
The effects of exposure to refugees on crime - ScienceDirect.com
We find that a 1-percentage-point increase in the share of refugees on destination islands increases crime incidents by 1.7–2.5 percentage points compared with ...
[116]
The crime effect of refugees | CEPR
Jul 24, 2022 · The results show that the refugee influx led to an increase in the incidence of crime by 2% to 4.75% per year, which corresponds to about 75,000 ...
[117]
Immigration and Crime: Evidence for the UK and Other Countries
Nov 13, 2013 · The share of asylum seekers in the local population is related to a 1.1% rise in property crime but no change in violent crime. A rise in A8 ...
[118]
Do refugees impact crime? Causal evidence from large-scale ...
Our results indicate that crime rates were not affected during the year of refugee arrival, but there was an increase in crime rates one year later.
[119]
Update of the Commission's 2020 study projecting the net fiscal ...
May 21, 2025 · This study shows that non-EU immigration has a negative net benefit in almost all countries, even under the assumption of 'perfect integration'.
[120]
Macroeconomic implications of the recent surge of immigration to ...
Oct 14, 2024 · Previous IMF work has shown that the increased migration caused initial fiscal costs of around 0.2% of EU GDP and as high as 1% of GDP in those ...
[121]
[PDF] Migrants and Welfare Dependency: Evidence from the EU
This technical report aims to quantify the gap in the probability of receiving any public assistance benefit and allowance in 20 EU countries, paying ...
[122]
[PDF] New approaches to labour market integration of migrants and refugees
EU migrants tend to have employment rates ... participation and promote welfare dependency among refugees, often long after these restrictions have been lifted.
[123]
Economic impact of migration - OECD
The OECD provides unique cross-country estimates of the net fiscal impact of immigrants to the public budget of member countries. The actual impact strongly ...
[124]
[PDF] An Economic Take on the Refugee Crisis - Economy and Finance
The refugee crisis has a moderate macroeconomic impact, with increased public spending and a slight rise in labor supply. The EU saw a more than doubling of ...
[125]
Facts about migration, integration and crime in Sweden
Oct 6, 2025 · The Police Authority's statistics show that lethal gun violence has increased within the context of criminal conflicts. In 2022, the number of ...
[126]
[PDF] RELATION BETWEEN CRIME AND IMMIGRATION IN THE NORDIC ...
The vast majority of available Swedish studies showed immigrants as overrepresented in delinquency (Vasiljevic et al., 2017; Kardell, 2010; Merill &. Åkerlund, ...<|separator|>
[127]
How do refugees affect social life in host communities? The case of ...
Aug 6, 2019 · This paper investigates how social dimensions of life in local communities are affected by the long-term presence of Congolese refugees in Rwanda.
[128]
The consequences of hosting asylum seekers for citizens' policy ...
Hosting asylum seekers directly affects specific policy preferences in Switzerland. Citizens temporarily vote less supportive of immigration and redistribution.
[129]
EU lists seven 'safe' countries of origin, tightening asylum rules
Apr 16, 2025 · EU lists seven 'safe' countries of origin, tightening asylum rules. Irregular EU border crossings were down 38% last year after an almost 10- ...Missing: Western 2020s UK Sweden
[130]
EU tightens asylum rules with list of 7 safe countries - DW
Apr 16, 2025 · The European Union on Wednesday published a list of seven countries that it considers "safe," as member states seek to speed up migrant returns.Missing: tightenings Western 2020s
[131]
From north to south, Europe tightening migration policies
Jul 17, 2025 · A sweeping trend across Europe is the tightening of immigration policies, affecting border control, migration management, asylum procedures and family ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
[132]
Implementation of the EU pact on migration and asylum | Epthinktank
Jan 30, 2025 · The pact was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in December 2023 and published in May 2024. This landmark agreement, heralding ...
[133]
Illegal Migration Act 2023 - Legislation.gov.uk
The purpose of this Act is to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes.
[134]
Illegal Migration Act ban on processing asylum claims lifted
Jul 26, 2024 · This amendment means that people who claimed asylum on or after 20 July 2023 will be able to have their asylum claims processed. Section 31 of ...Missing: restrictions | Show results with:restrictions
[135]
Fact Sheet: Presidential Proclamation to Suspend and Limit Entry ...
President Biden issued a Presidential Proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of noncitizens across the southern border.
[136]
Italy's evolving approach to illegal immigration under Giorgia Meloni
Feb 17, 2025 · A 60% drop in illegal arrivals from 2023 to 2024, credited to Meloni's stringent migration policies. Legal battles between the Italian judiciary ...
[137]
Italy: New law on immigration and asylum - Migration and Home Affairs
Jan 9, 2025 · A new law - Law No. 187/2024 - was published which introduces urgent provisions concerning the entry of foreign workers into Italy.
[138]
Italy plan to process migrants in Albania dealt blow by EU Court - BBC
Aug 1, 2025 · That "safe country" concept is central to the deal that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni struck with Albania in 2023 to send migrants intercepted ...
[139]
Denmark's Turn to Temporary Protection - Migration Policy Institute
May 21, 2025 · Denmark since the turn of the millennium has moved from a liberal approach toward humanitarian protection to a strict policy structure.Most immigrants in Denmark... · Recent policy has sought...
[140]
Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
Resettled refugees: As decided in the Tidö Agreement, Sweden lowered the number of resettled refugees accepted from 5,000 in 2022 to 900 the per year the ...
[141]
Changed rules on asylum seekers' accommodation - Migrationsverket
Sep 1, 2025 · From 1 September, the main rule is that asylum seekers must live in the accommodation allocated by the Swedish Migration Agency in order to be ...
[142]
Asylum restrictions in Sweden since 2015: a “temporary” u-turn ...
May 7, 2025 · As a main rule, asylum seekers will not be housed in rented apartments across the country or be allowed to find their own accommodation anymore ...
[143]
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/
[144]
Statistics on boat arrivals and boat turnbacks
How may people seeking asylum have come to Australia by boat? How many boats have been 'turned back'? Get the statistics on boat arrivals and boat turnbacks ...
[145]
Western Australia boat arrivals: what are the current laws and ...
Feb 18, 2024 · Since 19 July 2013, both Labor and Coalition agree that asylum seekers who arrive by boat to claim protection will never resettle in Australia.
[146]
[PDF] Tahirih Explains: “Safe Third Country” Rule
In 2019, the United States signed Asylum Cooperative Agreements, commonly known as “safe third country” agreements, with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
[147]
Signing of a Safe Third Country Agreement with Paraguay
Aug 14, 2025 · This agreement provides asylum seekers currently in the United States the opportunity to pursue their protection claims in Paraguay, allowing ...
[148]
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/belize-signs-safe-third-country-agreement-as-part-of-trumps-immigration-crackdown
[149]
US and Canada Expand Safe Third Country Agreement in Another ...
Mar 29, 2023 · The new terms allow each country to expel asylum seekers who apply for protection within 14 days of crossing the US-Canada border between ports of entry.
[150]
8. U.S.-Canada Agreement Covering Third-Country Asylum Claims ...
This Agreement does not apply to refugee status claimants who are citizens of Canada or the United States or who, not having a country of nationality, are ...
[151]
[PDF] Asylum Report 2025
Jun 30, 2025 · 2024 ushered in a new era for asylum and migration management in Europe. The adoption of the Pact on Migration and Asylum equipped the EU ...
[152]
From Compromise to Implementation: A New Era for EU Migration ...
Following the green light by the European Parliament in May 2024, the Council voted in favour of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum.<|separator|>
[153]
Response to the migration crisis and force majeure situations
In crisis situations and exceptional circumstances, member states are authorised to derogate from certain rules and request solidarity and support measures.Missing: global | Show results with:global
[154]
The Global Compact on Refugees - UNHCR
The Global Compact on Refugees reflects the global commitment to enhanced cooperation and solidarity with refugees and the countries that host them.Global Refugee Forum · Booklet · Background resources · Indicator Report 2023
[155]
[PDF] Growing Global Migration and Its Implications for the United States
As emigration pressures intensify in sending countries, many receiving countries are tightening admissions requirements for legal migrants and asylum-seekers, ...